'Toxic' Trump demand sees House Republicans rush to cut links: 'No way in hell'

Critics immediately condemned the $1 billion request related to the White House ballroom project included in Senate Republicans’ $72 billion spending package unveiled earlier this week and, as of Friday, a growing number of Republican lawmakers have joined in damning the proposal as being “too politically toxic,” Punchbowl News reported.

“A first-year poli sci major would know not to ask members to take this vote and we hope the speaker does too,” said one House Republican, speaking with Punchbowl News on the condition of anonymity.

Late Monday night, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) unveiled the $72 billion spending package designed to fund two federal immigration enforcement agencies – $38.2 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and $26 billion for Customs and Border Protection – which have been largely unfunded since mid-February.

Included in that spending package was a $1 billion ask for “security adjustments and upgrades” related to President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom project, which the president has long claimed would not be funded using taxpayer dollars.

Critics immediately pounced on the proposal, and as of Friday, both Republican representatives and senators joined their ranks in scrutinizing the request – albeit, “privately” behind closed doors, Punchbowl News reported.

“There is no way in hell that this will get 218 votes on the floor,” another House Republican told Punchbowl News, also under the condition of anonymity.

The inclusion of the $1 billion request, Punchbowl News reported, places the entire $72 billion spending package at risk given House Republicans’ thin majority in Congress’ lower chamber. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) demanded that those supporting the $1 billion request make “the case for why the proposed funding is necessary,” and Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-CA), who switched his party affiliation from Republican to independent earlier this year, called the request “problematic.”

“The idea of just having this funded all at once with very little process, very little scrutiny, very little explanation as to what the funds are going to be going toward, how this benefits our country or national security or taxpayers — I think that’s problematic,” he told Punchbowl News.